Nolan Finley

Flaming Liberals

Elder uses many "they say" arguments to present the Liberal view, but he does so in a way that makes Liberals seem idiotic and slightly insane. Instead of calling them insane himself, he lets the liberals speak for themselves. He starts out with telling the opinions of proffessional liberals, and gradually works his way down to include everyone. "They say" president Bush is evil, which progresses into the liberal belief that conservatives are Nazis. Elder makes it clear that this closed mindset has gone too far when he gives the example of his barber, who blames president Bush for 9/11, and says that Washington D.C. is involved in some conspiracy to murder Americans. At this point, Elder does not even have to insult the Liberals, because they have already said enough.

What's Mime is Your's

There are two main points I love about this strip that remind me of today's society. In the comic laws are made against having "invisible walls", which pokes fun at our system in the United States which allows people to outlaw almost ANYTHING, such as the words "one nation under GOD" and "J-E-S-U-S" at Christmas time. This comic outlines the idiocy in the kind of society that allows people to sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves and making them fat.
The other part about this comic that also reflects part of our society is the win-lose situation. Someone is always at the butt of the joke, and in this case, that party happens to be mimes. Even if you pass a law in an attempt to fix your problem, it becomes a problem for someone else. You really haven't solved any problem, you've just pushed it along for the next person to deal with. Eventually the pressure of the problem becomes too much to handle, which results in full-blown chaos. It was like the 1800s when the government kept pushing around the heated issue of slavery instead of solving it, which resulted in Civil War. I'm sure that if there was a sequel to this particular strip, the mimes would be finding a way to get revenge.

"Stop drunks from even starting their cars."

My columnist for this week was Joe Hurley, and he discussed the important issue of drunk driving. Hurley talks about the tragedy that occurred when Michael Gagnon chose to drink and drive. Due to his carelessness, four children and their mother are dead. Hurley goes on to explain that this tragedy didn't have to happen and could have easily been prevented if the right measures were taken. Hurley proposes that the government should mandate cars that check the driver's breath, cornea or perspiration, so their car will not start if the driver is intoxicated. Hurley believes that we should use our technology to prevent further deaths that will tear families apart.
I agree with Hurley; too many families have been bashed and battered because some idiot was able to drive drunk. My own family was a victim of such tragedy when my uncle was killed by a drunk driver many years ago. I think that stronger measures should definitely be taken to prevent such tragedies, and the breathalyzer installed in the car is a wonderful idea.
In this column, Hurley appeals to families, as he focuses on the deadly repercussions caused by drunk drivers. I think that Hurley also could have used this column effectively by appealing to the auto companies and government. Instead, he insults them, saying, "Or maybe the loss of a person here and a family there is acceptable to our lawmakers and auto companies." In order to make this column more effective for the government and auto companies, Hurley should have listed some statistics on deaths caused by drunk driving. He also could have mentioned how much money in taxes is wasted on drunk drivers in prison. Drunk driving costs society not only emotionally, but also economically. If it could be prevented, millions of tax dollars would be saved. By using this argument, Hurley could capture the heart of and the wallet.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas and Never Gave it Back

The illustration's point is that our society has turned Christmas into cheap gimmicks and sales pitches. No one--- not even stories that teach the "true" meaning of Christmas--- is safe from the hustle and bustle of the economic profit and cheesy lines. I agree with this because it seems that the media makes millions of dollars off of toys from films that give examples of the "true" meaning of Christmas. This type of marketing is contradictory to what these movies claim to teach about the "spirit of giving".
The visual tools in this article are very effective because it presents the reader with the stereo-typical view of Americans today's society; the large shopper filled with "Christmas cheer" and enchanted by the number of items. The surrounding shelves filled with items on sale show how materialistic our society has become, and the Visa card is the like the key to the gates of paradise for the bright and bushy-eyed customer.
The shopper's overall appearance can be compared to a "Who"(a what?) from How the Grinch Stole Christmas. The depiction characterizes Americans as obsessed with buying the true meaning of Christmas. The shopper is not necessarily male or female, is dressed in bright "holiday" clothing and has the empty expression of a dumb oaf. This image is necessary for showing that Americans are the same when it comes to Christmas.

Taylor's death a grim reminder for us all.

1.) In this article, Whitlock confronts the tradgedy of NFL player Sean Taylor' death. Whitock says the cause of death can be attributed to Taylor's sketchy past involving black violence. Whitock refers to those responsible for this violence as the "Black KKK," and explains that they are just as bad as the older generation's KKK. The most lethal thing about this group is that it is defended by some black journalists and most of the media, so the rest of the world has to either ignore the issue or go along with it, lest they be labeled racist. The fact is, Whitlock explains, that the statistics don't lie. Our culture ignoring or accepting the violence in our system will only make things worse. The Black KKK has maintained the "soulja boy" theme, which supports the same crippling mentality of the original KKK; it's about keeping black men "uneducated, outside the mainstream and six feet deep."

2.) Whitock's main point is that if blacks ever want to overcome the statistics of death in their own race, they need to first overcome the cultural views placed on them by the Black KKK. These views are destructive because they discourage education and other opportunities that could potentially lead to success.

3.) I agree with Whitoc's article. Sadly, our society has given the "Black KKK" immunity by endorsing its standards through violent Hip Hop music. It's ridiculous that in today's society, if you are a sucessful black man who has embraced education, the "Black KKK" says you are less of a man because of it.

4.) Whitock uses parellelism when he writes, "The Black KKK claimed another victim, a high-profile professional football player with a checkered past this time." This is significant because Whitock shows that Taylor was not just an innocent victim of white racism, as the black media would have us believe.

Leave Some Room for Jesus

1) Betsy Hart's article discusses the contoversial issue of what is really going on at high school dances. Is it dancing or foreplay? Some eyewitness accounts from chaperones, and even DJs have revealed a disturbing answer. Many Parents are becoming increasingly distressed that their children may be participating in the so called "freak dance", and other sexually arousing dances, which can become dangerous to students, especially to girls. Schools all over the country are beginning to crack down on innapropriate dancing, but surprisingly enough, other parents have taken a stand against this crackdown. They argue that this would only be ruining the fun of the dance, and provacotive dancing should not be banned. Hart and many other parents find this idea idiotic...



2) Hart's main point in this article is that parents need to 1) take a stand against povacotive "dancing", and 2) take responsibility for their kids if they can't take responsibility for themselves.



3) I definately agree with Hart's article because I find that any parent who knowingly allows their child to sexually "strut their stuff" (for the sake of fun???) is not fit for the role of an adult. For real, when have parents ever been there to let us do whatever we want and have fun??? If that was true, most of us kids would be "rollin' dubees in a van down by the river" (SNL reference lol). Parents, for our sakes, do your duty!

I also agree with this article on three different levels; as a Christian, as a student, and as a female. As a Christian, I want to behave in a way that is God-pleasing (leave room for Jesus), and being a temptation to my brothers in Christ is not who I want to be. As a student, I believe that the only place I should learn about sex is on the power point slides in Ms. Gooch's classroom, not on the dance floor. As a female, I feel much more comfortable knowing that I can enjoy myself in safety, because our school does enforce the "face to face, leave some space" policy. The idea of dancing with my friends in a safe, God-pleasing way sounds a lot more fun than doing the "freak dance"(honestly, where do they come up with these names???) with some guy.



4) Hart used many rhetorical questions in this article, but one particularly strong example was, "If the '$400 dress girl' had been sexually assaulted in the parking lot after the festivities because the dance wasn't a "dud," would her mom be happy, or suing the school?" I thought this example was extremely effective because it shows the consequences of the so called "fun" and the answer is obvious. It makes the reader pick sides, whether they are for or against this kind of "dancing", and what could happen if it not banned.